Skip to main content

Income Support - Review of Benefit Levels - Approved Panel Minutes - 29 February 2008

The official version of this document can be found via the PDF button.

The below content has been automatically generated from the original PDF and some formatting may have been lost, therefore it should not be relied upon to extract citations or propose amendments.

Health, Social Security & Housing Scrutiny Panel

Income Support

PUBLIC SESSION Record of Meeting

Date: 29th February 2008 Meeting Number: 30

 

Present

Deputy J. A. Martin – Chairman, Deputy G. Southern , Vice-Chairman, Deputy C. J. Scott Warr en and Connétable S. A. Yates

Apologies

 

Absent

 

In attendance

Charlie Ahier , Scrutiny Officer

 

Ref Back

Agenda matter

Action

 

1. Notes of previous meetings

The  Sub-Panel  approved  the  notes  of  their  meeting  of  the  28th January 2008.

 

 

2. Public responses to the Call for Evidence'

The Sub-Panel received and noted collated copies of the written public submissions to date. The Sub-Panel also received and noted a written record of progress to date with individual's issues. It was agreed  to  update  both  records  with  full  contact  details  where appropriate  and  for  Sub-Panel  members  to  update  on  progress through the Scrutiny Office. The Sub-Panel further agreed to ask anyone making a submission in the future if they would object to their details being passed on to their Parish Deputy or Connétable to pursue their case.

The Chairman forwarded a submission from a member of the public to  the  Scrutiny  Department  for  registering  and  subsequent distribution to the Sub-Panel.

The Sub-Panel discussed the submissions received to date and noted the following issues:

  • Rent rebate/rent abatement – the Sub-Panel agreed to write to  the  Minister  for  Treasury  &  Resources  requesting  an explanation of the accounting procedures involved.
  • Lifetime rental accommodation for the over 50s e.g. Convent Court – the Sub-Panel agreed to write to the Minister for Social Security requesting clarification as to how they are regarded under Income Support.
  • Maintenance  payments   it  was  noted  that  maintenance

CA CA

CA CA

 

payments  were  included  in  the  assessment  whether  the intended recipient received the payments or not.

  • Lifetime award of Disability Transport Allowance – the Sub- Panel  agreed  to  write  to  the  Minister  for  Social  Security seeking  an  explanation  as  to  why  recipients  who  had previously  been  advised  of  lifetime  awards  had  been reassessed under Income Support.
  • Family Nursing & Home Care (FN&HC) the Sub-Panel noted  membership  and  payment  issues  and  agreed  to circulate hard copies of the transcript of the recent meeting between  FN&HC  and  Sub-Panel  members  and  the subsequent e-mail correspondence.
  • Homeopathic Doctors the Sub-Panel noted that funded access to Homeopathic Doctors had been excluded under

Income Support.

The Connétable of St. Martin informed the Sub-Panel that he had conducted a survey of St. Martin Parishioners who had previously been in receipt of Welfare payments. The Sub-Panel noted the responses received and agreed that they should be registered and collated by the Scrutiny Office. The Sub-Panel further agreed to write to the Comité des Connétable s requesting an update on the types of queries they had received from their Parishioners.

CA CA

CA CA

 

The Sub-Panel received a representation from a member of the public who was accompanied by the Connétable of Grouville :

The  Sub-Panel  discussed  the  implications  of  means  testing Attendance Allowance under Income Support. The Sub-Panel were advised that this individual had a profoundly disabled 4 year old child who was unable to communicate, reach or grab and would require a lifetime of intensive care. They were further advised that the child in question was currently attending Mont à L'Abbé school.

The  Sub-Panel  were  advised  that  Jersey  was  one  of  the  few jurisdictions that means tested Attendance Allowance. It was noted that the circumstances of some parents prevented them from being able to give up work to act as carers and that the withdrawal of Attendance  Allowance  could  profoundly  disadvantage  them  and their child(ren). The Sub-Panel were advised that the father of the child in question had effectively down graded his career in order to ensure greater flexibility for dealing with his child's condition when required.

The Sub-Panel noted that the parents of the child in question had received  muddled'  advice  form  the  Social  Security  Department. They had received differing advice from different employees which may have resulted in the parents not claiming other benefits they were in fact entitled to. In contrast it was noted that the Health & Social Services Department had provided an excellent service. The Sub-Panel were further advised that when challenged about the changes  to  Attendance  Allowance  under  Income  Support  the Minister  for  Social  Security  had  stated  that  the  aim  was  to  re- distribute the money available to those people most in need. The Sub-Panel agreed to establish how many had received Attendance Allowance in 2006 and the total cost of those payments.

CA

 

The Sub-Panel agreed that many States members may have been unaware  of  the  impact  upon  Attendance  Allowance  when  they approved the Income Support proposals.

The Sub-Panel were advised that other parents of children at Mont à L'Abbé school had informally expressed their concern about the changes to Attendance Allowance. The Sub-Panel agreed to write to the Head Teacher of Mont à L'Abbé school to arrange a meeting with parents to further discuss this issue.

The Sub-Panel were advised that copies of the correspondence between the parents of the child in question and the Health & Social Services Department and the Social Security Department would be forwarded for their information.

CA

 

3. Legal Advice

  1. The  Sub-Panel  noted  that  only  two  responses  to the request for legal advice had been received to date. They further noted that one firm had declined the request and one firm had quoted a cost of £4,000-£5,000. The Sub- Panel agreed to contact the law firms that had not yet replied to their letter.
  1. The Sub-Panel noted representation from members of the public regarding the treatment of same sex couples under the Income Support Law and the Income Tax Law. The Sub-Panel were advised that the Attorney General had offered to provide them with legal advice concerning this issue. The Sub-Panel agreed, in the first instance, to write to the comptroller of Income Tax for clarification on how  the  following  family  units'  are  assessed  under Income Tax laws in comparison to an equivalent married couple:
  • Different sex couple
  • Different sex couple with children
  • Same sex couple
  • Same sex couple with adopted children

CA

CA

 

4. Media Advertisement

The Sub-Panel discussed the public response to their recent media advertisements  and  agreed  that  they  would  reach  a  different demographic advertising on the radio. The Sub-Panel agreed to initiate  radio  advertising  and  the  Chairman  was  delegated  this responsibility.

JM/CA

 

5. Budget

The Sub-Panel noted that their existing budget of £2,000 would not be sufficient to cover the cost of legal advice or more extensive media advertisements. The Chairman agreed to discuss the budget with the Health, Social Security and Housing Panel at their meeting of the 4th March 2008.

JM/CA

 

6. Date of next meeting

 

 

The Sub-Panel agreed to meet at 9:30am on Friday 7th March.

 

Initialled. Date..